DOCSLIB.ORG

Space Shuttle's

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Space Shuttle's National Aeronautics and Space Administration *AP is a trademark owned by the College Board, which was not involved in the production of, and does not endorse, this product. SPACE SHUTTLE LAUNCH MOTION ANALYSIS Background Since its first flight in 1981, NASA has used the space shuttle for human transport, the construction of the International Space Station (ISS), and to research the effects of space on the human body. One of the keys to the success of the Space Shuttle Program is the Space Shuttle Mission Control Center (MCC). The Space Shuttle MCC at NASA Johnson Space Center uses some of the most sophisticated technology and communication equipment in the world to monitor and control the space shuttle flights. Within the Space Shuttle MCC, teams of highly qualified engineers, scientists, doctors, and technicians, known as flight controllers, monitor the systems and activities aboard the space shuttle. They work together as a powerful team, spending many hours performing critical simulations as they prepare to support preflight, ascent, flight, and reentry of the space shuttle and the crew. The flight controllers provide the knowledge and expertise needed to support normal operations and any unexpected events. The space shuttle follows a specific trajectory during a mission. The Flight Dynamics Officer (FDO, pronounced “Fido”) in the Space Shuttle MCC is responsible for monitoring the trajectory. They must know exactly where the space shuttle is and where it is going at all times during the mission. The trajectory of the space shuttle is unique for each flight and is broken into four phases: ascent, entry, orbit, and rendezvous. Figure 1: Space Shuttle Discovery at Figure 2: Viewed from the Banana River Viewing Site, Space Shuttle Discovery lift-off during STS 121 heads toward Earth orbit and rendezvous with the International Space Station (ISS) on 28 August, 2009 during STS 128. www.nasa.gov Space Shuttle Launch Motion Analysis 1/5 The first phase is the ascent phase which begins at lift-off and ends as the space shuttle reaches orbit. Since the space shuttle has a mass of approximately 2 million kg (weight of about 4.4 million lbs) when on the launch pad, a very powerful propulsion system is needed to launch it into orbit. The main propulsion system consists of the External Tank (ET) and the Space Shuttle Main Engines (SSMEs). This system, together with the Solid Rocket Boosters (SRBs), supplies the force (thrust) needed to accelerate to the speed of approximately 7.85 km/s that is required to attain orbit. Within 1 minute of launch the space shuttle breaks the sound barrier. The stress on the vehicle and the crew increases as the space shuttle accelerates. To ensure their safety, the acceleration of the space shuttle must be kept below 3 g (3 times the acceleration due to gravity). The space shuttle continues to accelerate along its trajectory until Main Engine Cutoff (MECO). It only takes approximately 8 minutes and 30 seconds for the space shuttle to reach MECO, which occurs around 104 km (56 miles) above the surface of the Earth. The ET is dropped away to break up and land in the ocean. Approximately 30 minutes later, the orbiter performs a final rocket engine firing to reach an orbital altitude of around 320 km (200 miles) above Earth. During the ascent phase, the FDO flight controllers work closely with the Propulsion (PROP) officer and the Booster flight controller who are both responsible for monitoring the propulsion of the space shuttle. In addition, there are several support teams for the FDO position located in backrooms of the MCC. These support teams are constantly engaged in intensive computational processing starting with the ascent phase and continuing throughout the entire mission. The FDO flight controller continues to work closely with the backroom support teams and other flight controllers in the Space Shuttle MCC throughout the mission to meet the mission objectives and to ensure crew safety. Problem The Ascent Team, one of the backroom teams associated with FDO, has provided the acceleration data of the space shuttle during the launch of Space Transportation System (STS) 121. As the space shuttle lifts off from the launch pad and ascends into orbit, the motion along its flight path appears to be smooth. Although one might intuitively perceive the space shuttle as maintaining a constant acceleration during its climb into orbit, it actually experiences varying accelerations during this period. The final orbital speed of the space shuttle is approximately 28,000 km/hr (17,500 mph). Graph 1 provides an acceleration-time profile for the launch ascent phase of STS 121. The motion is modeled as linear motion. For purposes of this problem, centripetal or orbital motions are neglected in this model, therefore the acceleration is assumed to affect only the speed of the shuttle. The space shuttle has an initial speed of 0 m/s and distance is measured from the launch pad. Note: Throughout this problem, when the terms “acceleration” and “displacement” are used, they are referring to the magnitude component of the vectors only. www.nasa.gov Space Shuttle Launch Motion Analysis 2/5 Mission Elapsed Time (MET) vs. Acceleration Acceleration (m/s2) Mission Elapsed Time (sec) Graph 1: Acceleration profile of STS 121 during the ascent phase. A. The following events take place during the launch of a space shuttle. Compare the rates of change of acceleration in Graph 1 and determine which event occurs at the marked time periods (A through G) and points (P1 through P5). External Tank separation Aerodynamic stress on the spacecraft in atmospheric flight is at its highest (Max Q) Space Shuttle Main Engines provide smoothly changing acceleration Throttle down On orbit Throttle up Main Engine Cutoff Solid Rocket Boosters burning out Negative rate of change of acceleration (large air drag) Constant acceleration (3 g’s) Solid Rocket Booster separation Space shuttle lift-off www.nasa.gov Space Shuttle Launch Motion Analysis 3/5 B. Identify the initial acceleration value at t = 0 s from Graph 1and explain why the acceleration is not 0 m/s2? During the timeframe t = 124 s through t = 446 s the space shuttle’s main engines produce a very smooth change in acceleration. Graph 2 shows how this period of changing acceleration can be best modeled by the expression: a(t) = (6.77 ×10 −7 )t 3 − (3.98 ×10 −4 )t 2 + (1.05 ×10 −1 )t + (8.59 ×10 −1 ). Mission Elapsed Time (MET) vs. Acceleration with Trendline Acceleration (m/s2) a(t) = 6.77×10-7t 3 – 3.98×10-4t 2 + 1.05×10-1t + 8.59×10-1 Mission Elapsed Time (sec) Graph 2: Acceleration profile of STS 121 showing the trendline for the time period t=124 s to t = 446 s. C. Write an expression that represents the change in speed (∆v) experienced by the space shuttle during the time period t = 124 s to t = 446 s and then evaluate the expression to determine the value. www.nasa.gov Space Shuttle Launch Motion Analysis 4/5 D. If the speed of the space shuttle at t = 124 s is approximately 974 m/s, write an expression that represents change in displacement along the ascent path during the time period t = 124 s through t = 446 s and evaluate the expression to determine the value. The displacement expression derived from the acceleration expression will not yield an altitude measurement but a distance along the flight path. (This is because the data used to produce the Mission Elapsed Time (MET) vs. Acceleration graph is a composite resultant of all three axis accelerometers on the space shuttle.) E. Notice that the acceleration between t = 446 s and t = 500 s remains constant at approximately 3 g (g = 9.8 m/s2). See Graph 2. Maintaining the acceleration at 3 g limits the physical stress endured by the astronauts. Make a sketch of the speed-time graph for this time period. F. Determine the speed of the space shuttle at Main Engine Cutoff (MECO) occurring at t = 500 s. www.nasa.gov Space Shuttle Launch Motion Analysis 5/5.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The International Space Station and the Space Shuttle
    Order Code RL33568 The International Space Station and the Space Shuttle Updated November 9, 2007 Carl E. Behrens Specialist in Energy Policy Resources, Science, and Industry Division The International Space Station and the Space Shuttle Summary The International Space Station (ISS) program began in 1993, with Russia joining the United States, Europe, Japan, and Canada. Crews have occupied ISS on a 4-6 month rotating basis since November 2000. The U.S. Space Shuttle, which first flew in April 1981, has been the major vehicle taking crews and cargo back and forth to ISS, but the shuttle system has encountered difficulties since the Columbia disaster in 2003. Russian Soyuz spacecraft are also used to take crews to and from ISS, and Russian Progress spacecraft deliver cargo, but cannot return anything to Earth, since they are not designed to survive reentry into the Earth’s atmosphere. A Soyuz is always attached to the station as a lifeboat in case of an emergency. President Bush, prompted in part by the Columbia tragedy, made a major space policy address on January 14, 2004, directing NASA to focus its activities on returning humans to the Moon and someday sending them to Mars. Included in this “Vision for Space Exploration” is a plan to retire the space shuttle in 2010. The President said the United States would fulfill its commitments to its space station partners, but the details of how to accomplish that without the shuttle were not announced. The shuttle Discovery was launched on July 4, 2006, and returned safely to Earth on July 17.
    [Show full text]
  • The New American Space Age: a Progress Report on Human Spaceflight the New American Space Age: a Progress Report on Human Spaceflight the International Space
    The New American Space Age: A PROGRESS REPORT ON HUMAN SpaCEFLIGHT The New American Space Age: A Progress Report on Human Spaceflight The International Space Station: the largest international scientific and engineering achievement in human history. The New American Space Age: A Progress Report on Human Spaceflight Lately, it seems the public cannot get enough of space! The recent hit movie “Gravity” not only won 7 Academy Awards – it was a runaway box office success, no doubt inspiring young future scientists, engineers and mathematicians just as “2001: A Space Odyssey” did more than 40 years ago. “Cosmos,” a PBS series on the origins of the universe from the 1980s, has been updated to include the latest discoveries – and funded by a major television network in primetime. And let’s not forget the terrific online videos of science experiments from former International Space Station Commander Chris Hadfield that were viewed by millions of people online. Clearly, the American public is eager to carry the torch of space exploration again. Thankfully, NASA and the space industry are building a host of new vehicles that will do just that. American industry is hard at work developing new commercial transportation services to suborbital altitudes and even low Earth orbit. NASA and the space industry are also building vehicles to take astronauts beyond low Earth orbit for the first time since the Apollo program. Meanwhile, in the U.S. National Lab on the space station, unprecedented research in zero-g is paving the way for Earth breakthroughs in genetics, gerontology, new vaccines and much more.
    [Show full text]
  • Please Type Your Paper Title Here In
    Estimating the Reliability of a Soyuz Spacecraft Mission Michael G. Lutomskia*, Steven J. Farnham IIb, and Warren C. Grantb aNASA-JSC, Houston, TX – [email protected] bARES Corporation, Houston, TX Abstract: Once the US Space Shuttle retires in 2010, the Russian Soyuz Launcher and Soyuz Spacecraft will comprise the only means for crew transportation to and from the International Space Station (ISS). The U.S. Government and NASA have contracted for crew transportation services to the ISS with Russia. The resulting implications for the US space program including issues such as astronaut safety must be carefully considered. Are the astronauts and cosmonauts safer on the Soyuz than the Space Shuttle system? Is the Soyuz launch system more robust than the Space Shuttle? Is it safer to continue to fly the 30 year old Shuttle fleet for crew transportation and cargo resupply than the Soyuz? Should we extend the life of the Shuttle Program? How does the development of the Orion/Ares crew transportation system affect these decisions? The Soyuz launcher has been in operation for over 40 years. There have been only two loss of life incidents and two loss of mission incidents. Given that the most recent incident took place in 1983, how do we determine current reliability of the system? Do failures of unmanned Soyuz rockets impact the reliability of the currently operational man-rated launcher? Does the Soyuz exhibit characteristics that demonstrate reliability growth and how would that be reflected in future estimates of success? NASA’s next manned rocket and spacecraft development project is currently underway.
    [Show full text]
  • Developing the Space Shuttle1
    ****EU4 Chap 2 (161-192) 4/2/01 12:45 PM Page 161 Chapter Two Developing the Space Shuttle1 by Ray A. Williamson Early Concepts of a Reusable Launch Vehicle Spaceflight advocates have long dreamed of building reusable launchers because they offer relative operational simplicity and the potential of significantly reduced costs com- pared to expendable vehicles. However, they are also technologically much more difficult to achieve. German experimenters were the first to examine seriously what developing a reusable launch vehicle (RLV) might require. During the 1920s and 1930s, they argued the advantages and disadvantages of space transportation, but were far from having the technology to realize their dreams. Austrian engineer Eugen M. Sänger, for example, envi- sioned a rocket-powered bomber that would be launched from a rocket sled in Germany at a staging velocity of Mach 1.5. It would burn rocket fuel to propel it to Mach 10, then skip across the upper reaches of the atmosphere and drop a bomb on New York City. The high-flying vehicle would then continue to skip across the top of the atmosphere to land again near its takeoff point. This idea was never picked up by the German air force, but Sänger revived a civilian version of it after the war. In 1963, he proposed a two-stage vehi- cle in which a large aircraft booster would accelerate to supersonic speeds, carrying a rel- atively small RLV to high altitudes, where it would be launched into low-Earth orbit (LEO).2 Although his idea was advocated by Eurospace, the industrial consortium formed to promote the development of space activities, it was not seriously pursued until the mid- 1980s, when Dornier and other German companies began to explore the concept, only to drop it later as too expensive and technically risky.3 As Sänger’s concepts clearly illustrated, technological developments from several dif- ferent disciplines must converge to make an RLV feasible.
    [Show full text]
  • SOYUZ THROUGH the AGES the R-7 Rocket That Led to the Family of Soyuz Vehicles Launching Today Lifted Off for the First Time Onfeb
    RUSSIAN SPACE SOYUZ THROUGH THE AGES The R-7 rocket that led to the family of Soyuz vehicles launching today lifted off for the first time onFeb. 17, 1959. The last launch, on Dec. 27, 2018, was number 1,898. Irene Klotz and Maxim Pyadushkin Vostochny Cosmodrome anufactured by the Progress Rocket Space Center in Sama- Evolution of Soyuz-Family Launch Vehicles ra, Russia, the medium-lift expendable booster originally was used for Soviet-era human space missions and later became the R-7 Soyuz Soyuz-L workhorse for the country’s civilian and military space programs. M 1957 First launch of the ICBM (SS-6 1966-76 (32 launches, 1970-71 (three launches, Sapwood) that served as a basis for including 30 successful, all successful, The first rocket officially named Soyuz was launched in Soviet/Russian launch vehicles from Baikonur) from Baikonur) 1966 and has since flown 1,050 times, of which 1,023 were including the Soyuz family successful. Production of Soyuz rockets peaked in the early Soyuz 1980s at about 60 vehicles per year. Medium-Class Launch Vehicle Russia began offering Soyuz launch services internationally in the mid-1980s through Glavkosmos, a commercial entity set up to sell Soviet rocket and space technologies. Manufacturer: Progress Rocket Space Soyuz-U/-U2 Soyuz-M Center, Samara, Russia In 1996, Russia created Starsem, a joint venture (35% ArianeGroup, 25% Roscosmos, 25% RKTs Progress, 15% 1991 Breakup of the 1973-2017 1971-76 (eight launches, Soviet Union, (859 launches, including all successful, from Plesetsk) Dimensions Arianespace) that had exclusive rights to provide commercial launch services on Soyuz launch vehicles.
    [Show full text]
  • Mission Task Checklist
    MISSION TASK CHECKLIST Entryway Discovery (page 2) Astronaut Encounter (page 3) Astronaut Autograph (page 3) Where in the World? (page 4) Mission Patch (page 5) Wild Neighbors (page 6) NASA Speak (page 7) Journey To Mars: Explorers Wanted (page 7) The Orion spacecraft is the Science On A Sphere (page 8) crew vehicle NASA is Move the Galaxy (page 8) currently developing for future deep-space missions. Mapping Survey (page 9) Crew Conference (page 10) Shuttle Launch Experience (page 15) EXPEDITION Bus Tour (page16) Touch the Moon (page16) LOGBOOK Energy for the Future (page 11-12) From Sketchpad to Launchpad (page 13) Team Name: ______________________________ ISS Live! (page 14) Rocket Garden Rap (page 17) Commander (teacher): ______________________ Rocket Search (page 18) Pilot (chaperone): __________________________ Mission Specialist 1 (MS1): ________________________ For more cool information and activities, visit www.nasa.gov and click on the “For Students” tab! Mission Specialist 2 (MS2): ________________________ Mission Specialist 3 (MS3): ________________________ Mission Specialist 4 (MS4): ________________________ MISSION TASK: Rocket Search LOCATION: Rocket Garden Expedition 321 YOU ARE GO FOR LAUNCH The rockets on display here are real, space worthy rockets left over from the early days of space exploration. Unlike the space shuttle, they are all “expendable” rockets, which means they were designed to be used only once. Some of these were Welcome the Kennedy Space Center Visitor Complex, the only place surplus, while others were designed for missions that were later canceled. on Earth where human beings have left the planet, traveled to Find the following items in the Rocket Garden and in the Word Search puzzle.
    [Show full text]
  • Space Tales Photograph Courtesy of NASA a Boom in Space-Based Science Is Under Way
    Space Tales Photograph courtesy of NASA A boom in space-based science is under way. Private companies ferry people and cargo to and from the International Space Station, where astronauts run increasingly automated experiments. While one UCSB team reviews data from a recent mission, another prepares for one ahead. Meanwhile, Netfl ix plans a movie about UCSB College of Engineering graduate and NASA astronaut José Hernández. The SpaceX Crew Dragon Endeavour is pictured high above Earth during its approach to the International Space Station. 13 Photograph courtesy of Allan Hancock College Net ix Movie Former astronaut José Hernández has shared his inspirational story with students to Tell the across the country, including (shown) at a community event in Santa Maria in 2017. he inspirational story of former NASA astronaut José Story of UCSB Hernández, a graduate of UC Santa Barbara’s Electri- Tcal and Computer Engineering Department who went from California’s migrant farmworker community to orbiting Alumnus the Earth, will be the subject of a Netfl ix original movie set to begin production this summer. The working title of the fi lm is “A Million Miles Away.” Hernández spent fourteen days in space in 2009 as a fl ight Astronaut’s engineer on board STS-128, a NASA Space Shuttle mission to the International Space Station (ISS). But his fl ight path to space, where he became the fi rst person to send a tweet in Path to Space Spanish from space, was not easy. “The fi lm shows my life as a migrant farmer who went from working in the fi elds with his parents to becoming an astronaut,” said Hernández, who described his nomadic child- hood of moving each year with his family to various locations throughout California and Mexico.
    [Show full text]
  • The Apollo-Soyuz Test Project Medical Report
    NASA SP-411 The Apollo-Soyuz Test Project Medical Report National Aeronautics and Space Administration THE APOLLO-SOYUZ TEST PROJECT MEDICAL REPORT , .. Ji I NASA SP-411 The Apollo-Soyuz Test Project Medical Report Compiled by Arnauld E. Nicogossian,M.D. 1977 Scientific and Technical Information Office National Aeronautics and Space Administration Washington, DC For sale by the National Technical Information Service Springfield, Virginia 22161 Price - $6.00 Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Apollo Soyuz Test Project. The Apollo-Soyuz Test Project medical report. (NASA SP ; 411) Bibliography: p. Includes index. 1. Space medicine. 2. Apollo-Soyuz Test Project. 3. Space flight-Physiological effect. I. Nicogossian, Arnauld E. II. Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center. III. Title. IV. Series: United States. National Aero­ nautics and Space Administration. NASA SP ; 411. RC1l35.A66 616.9'80214 77-2370 FOREWORD The Apollo-Soyuz Test Project (ASTP) was both an end and a beginning. It was the final flight of the highly successful Apollo program. It was the last time that three U.S. astronauts, tightly packed into a command module, would launch from an expendable booster, elbow their way through space, and then return gracefully to a salty splashdown. But it was the first time that an international purpose to manned flight was demonstrated. Joint docking and the sharing of quarters, experiments, and pro­ visions have all symbolized the feasibility and the will of cooperative space explora­ tion. As we summarize the Life Sciences findings of this mission, we look forward to the future. We are confident that international manned missions will continue in ever increasing frequency and duration.
    [Show full text]
  • Space Stations: Base Camps to the Stars*
    Chapter 23 Space Stations: Base Camps to the Stars* Roger D. Launius† Introduction This paper reviews the history of space stations in American culture, from an 1869 work of fiction in the Atlantic Monthly to the present realization of the International Space Station (ISS). It also discusses the history of space stations “real and imagined” as cultural icons. From winged rocket ships, to the giant ro- tating wheels of Wernher von Braun and 2001: A Space Odyssey, to the epic, controversy-wracked saga of the ISS, the paper also discusses Mir, Skylab, and the Salyuts. It will close with a projection into the future as ISS is realized—or perhaps deferred—and perhaps future generations begin work on space stations elsewhere in the Solar System. The Attraction of a Space Station From virtually the beginning of the 20th century, those interested in the human exploration of space have viewed as central to that endeavor the building of a massive Earth-orbital space station that would serve as the jumping-off point to the Moon and the planets. Always, space exploration enthusiasts believed, a * Presented at the Thirty-Eighth History Symposium of the International Academy of As- tronautics, 4–8 October 2004, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Paper IAC-04-IAA.6.15.4.01. † Division of Space History, National Air and Space Museum, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., U.S.A. 421 permanently occupied space station was a necessary outpost in the new frontier of space. The more technically minded recognized that once humans had achieved Earth orbit about 200 miles up, the presumed location of any space sta- tion, the vast majority of the atmosphere and the gravity well had been conquered and that people were now about halfway to anywhere they might want to go.
    [Show full text]
  • Toward a History of the Space Shuttle an Annotated Bibliography
    Toward a History of the Space Shuttle An Annotated Bibliography Part 2, 1992–2011 Monographs in Aerospace History, Number 49 TOWARD A HISTORY OF THE SPACE SHUTTLE AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY, PART 2 (1992–2011) Compiled by Malinda K. Goodrich Alice R. Buchalter Patrick M. Miller of the Federal Research Division, Library of Congress NASA History Program Office Office of Communications NASA Headquarters Washington, DC Monographs in Aerospace History Number 49 August 2012 NASA SP-2012-4549 Library of Congress – Federal Research Division Space Shuttle Annotated Bibliography PREFACE This annotated bibliography is a continuation of Toward a History of the Space Shuttle: An Annotated Bibliography, compiled by Roger D. Launius and Aaron K. Gillette, and published by NASA as Monographs in Aerospace History, Number 1 in December 1992 (available online at http://history.nasa.gov/Shuttlebib/contents.html). The Launius/Gillette volume contains those works published between the early days of the United States’ manned spaceflight program in the 1970s through 1991. The articles included in the first volume were judged to be most essential for researchers writing on the Space Shuttle’s history. The current (second) volume is intended as a follow-on to the first volume. It includes key articles, books, hearings, and U.S. government publications published on the Shuttle between 1992 and the end of the Shuttle program in 2011. The material is arranged according to theme, including: general works, precursors to the Shuttle, the decision to build the Space Shuttle, its design and development, operations, and management of the Space Shuttle program. Other topics covered include: the Challenger and Columbia accidents, as well as the use of the Space Shuttle in building and servicing the Hubble Space Telescope and the International Space Station; science on the Space Shuttle; commercial and military uses of the Space Shuttle; and the Space Shuttle’s role in international relations, including its use in connection with the Soviet Mir space station.
    [Show full text]
  • Space Launch Vehicles: Government Activities, Commercial Competition, and Satellite Exports
    Order Code IB93062 CRS Issue Brief for Congress Received through the CRS Web Space Launch Vehicles: Government Activities, Commercial Competition, and Satellite Exports Updated October 6, 2003 Marcia S. Smith Resources, Science, and Industry Division Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress CONTENTS SUMMARY MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS U.S. Launch Vehicle Policy From “Shuttle-Only” to “Mixed Fleet” Clinton Administration Policy George W. Bush Administration Activity U.S. Launch Vehicle Programs and Issues NASA’s Space Shuttle Program New U.S. Expendable and Reusable Launch Vehicles NASA’s Efforts to Develop New Reusable Launch Vehicles (RLVs) Private Sector RLV Development Efforts DOD’s Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) Program U.S. Commercial Launch Services Industry Congressional Interest Foreign Launch Competition (Including Satellite Export Issues) Europe China Russia Ukraine India Japan Satellite Exports: Agency Jurisdiction and Other Continuing Issues LEGISLATION For more information on the space shuttle program, see: CRS Report RS21408, NASA’s Space Shuttle Columbia: Quick Facts and Issues for Congress CRS Report RS21606, NASA’s Space Shuttle Columbia: Synopsis of the Report of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board CRS Report RS21411, NASA’s Space Shuttle Program: Space Shuttle Appropriations FY1992-FY2002 CRS Report RS21419, NASA’s Space Shuttle Program: Excerpts from Recent Reports and Hearings Regarding Shuttle Safety For information on the Orbital Space Plane, which is not a launch vehicle, but a spacecraft, see CRS Issue Brief IB93017, Space Stations. IB93062 10-06-03 Space Launch Vehicles: Government Activities, Commercial Competition, and Satellite Exports SUMMARY Launching satellites into orbit, once the plans to refocus its latest RLV development exclusive domain of the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • The Aspect Ratio of the Full-Frame Still Sensor at 1.5:1 Closely
    FILMING FROM SPACE // CASE STUDY No Place Like Home THE LATEST IMAX BLOCKBUSTER WAS FILMED BY A BUNCH OF ROOKIE CAMERA OPERATORS, BUT THEN AGAIN THEY WERE ALL HIGHLY Original Article Appeared in: TRAINED ASTRONAUTS LOOKING TO SHARE THEIR PRIVILEGED VIEW September/October 2016 // PRO MOVIEMAKER OF THE PLANET WE CALL HOME // written by Terry Hope very astronaut that’s ever had the privilege to a chance to get a strong flavour of what it might be quality digital cameras has come to the rescue. The covered the launch of the first space shuttle. head off into space has come back enthralled like thanks to the medium of film – specifically IMAX latest IMAX blockbuster – the seventh to be made Given that it was no longer feasible to work with and inspired by the experience. It doesn’t matter film. Those who have been to an IMAX cinema will in space – is A Beautiful Planet, which serves as a E traditional IMAX cameras it fell to James to find a good how familiar you might be with the vast amount of already be familiar with how intense the experience testament that it’s now possible to achieve ultimate alternative. After evaluating possible replacements imagery out there depicting the view looking back can be, with a screen that extends beyond your field high quality without a bespoke piece of heavy- the decision came down in favour of the Canon EOS towards Planet Earth, nothing quite prepares you for of view, stunning film quality and state-of-the-art weight kit. C300, even though the Mark I only shot in HD.
    [Show full text]